Topic: Youtubers upset over Nintendo's New affiliate program

According to law, yes I can.

Disney owns the copyrights so they can keep selling the old movies. If the copyright expired, everyone could make copies of the movies, not be "creative".

That is not the point really. The point is after that anyone could make other (Ideally better) movies using those characters.

Imagine if what is applied to copyright was applied to patents the world would fall apart. Why do people doing something unnecessary deserve better terms than people doing things that are important to improving the lives of all the people in the world.

Penicillin was developed around the same time as Mickey Mouse. Broaded patented all those ideas still wouldn't have expired using copyright so there would be one source of antibiotics.

Last I checked, Mickey Mouse doesn't directly effect people's lives, so I'm not sure why you're making this comparison? Copyrights are stricter because they're dealing with the intangible. If anything, it forces creativity since now people can't just make up different stories about the same characters.

No, according to law you have temporary exclusive rights. That doesn't make it a possession that is yours for the life of the possession. That's why it expires. When Disney's copyrights expire, people then have the freedom to make their own modifications of Wreck-it-Ralph or The Rescuers and sell them for a living. That's creative freedom of you ask me. In fact, that very process is what allowed films like Snow White and The Little Mermaid possible.

The fact that people can verbatim copy something is an unfortunate consequence of that, but those direct copies tend to lose out to more valuable versions. For example, the more popular versions of Hamlet may come with commentary or other additional content like SparkNotes' No Fear Shakespeare. While your verbatim copies lose out.

Let's Plays are not covered under fair use. YouTubers are upset because they are use to making a certain amount off their videos and now Nintendo wants a cut. (which Nintendo has every right to) That is the focus of this, YouTubers want money.

lol...it's funny how people STILL don't get it.

Okay, I REALLY need to get this straight, because I realize that I always put the argument in a completely idiotic context, and then forget to note WHY EXACTLY I hate monetizing.
My problem isn't simply that YouTubers get paid for their stuff, it's how this money is generated, which is Google advertisements. Ad banners and videos on YouTube are part of Google AdChoice/AdSense, which collect insane amounts of user data (sometimes data they have no reason to claim, like the browser history, or even passwords from websites with Google ads) when they pop up. And many YouTubers gladly accept that gross breach of privacy for a few pennies. Not only am I completely against this borderline-criminal behaviour, I also go against it aggressively, by blocking data collection.
Now, here's the stupid part: when an adscript tries to grab your data, but cannot get it, it simply stops without displaying ads. That's because ads are shown based on a users' IP profile to show ads that relate to things you searched or sites you visited - but without an IP address, it basically errors out. Meaning no money for the YouTuber. But does that mean I don't support YouTubers? By far not. But I only do it if they ask for money (be it via donations or Patreon), and only if that YouTuber has the kind of quality that I'm looking for.
So, no: I'm not actually saying YouTubers shouldn't have ANY money at all, but I sure as hell will deny them every dirty penny they get from trying to steal and sell my data - that's what makes a YouTuber awful by default (especially Let's Players). If they want money, they should open up a way for people to GIVE them money.

Problem is: that doesn't have much to do with this topic, and I can already see the dumb "you can't expect viewers to pay for everything" argument...
I call it "virtual selection". It basically means that it depends on how much a YouTuber wants and how much his/her fans want to give for that - if it's not enough, then the YouTuber wasn't good enough to convince a sufficient number of people, or he/she was too greedy.

Copyright lasts for my entire life, so it's not "temporary" to me. It's mine until I die (and 70 years after), plain and simple.

Anyway, back on topic, I don't think "real" is the right word to compare the Youtube "job". Honestly, it's difficult to make a comparison between a job and YT monetization aside from freelancing or working for a network.

So you'd rather they take down every video that uses their content, because that is what would happen if they were doing better. Maybe what people should do is actually contribute to society rather than jump on the YT bandwagon and be "me too" people.

But the thing is that it shouldn't be that way, as it undermines the purpose of copyright in the first place.

@iKhan: The whole point of copyright is to protect IP. Say you play a song that was composed by someone else. You have no right to make any profit of his/her song that you either remixed, remastered or played unless the owner of the song is fine with it. That's why SEGA can't seem to get some certain songs in specific games due to this fact because they need permission to use those songs whether they like it or not.

The lifespan of the copyright is well thought because if the owner does no make anymore profit with that song within a period of time, then the song goes public. King Kong is now public domain something which Universal Studios failed to make another film after years. Popeye is now public domain so Nintendo can now use it similar to Sony or even DreamWorks.

Not this thread again...

Let's not revive threads over 6 months old please.